Are deep oceans the answer to the 'missing heat' question?

Thanks for the heads up -- it looks like a fascinating study. From a quick glance it doesn't appear to be *the* answer to the "missing heat" question, but it's a start. I'll give it a proper read here a little later.

In searching your link for the Song&Colberg study I came across another paper on deep ocean warming by Kouketsu et al. titled, "Deep ocean heat-content changes estimated from observation and reanalysis product and their influence on sea level change." The abstract states:

"We calculated basin-scale and global ocean decadal temperature change rates from the 1990s to the 2000s for waters below 3000 m. Large temperature increases were detected around Antarctica, and a relatively large temperature increase was detected along the northward path of Circumpolar Deep Water in the Pacific. The global heat content (HC) change estimated from the temperature change rates below 3000 m was 0.8 × 1022 J decade−1; a value that cannot be neglected for precise estimation of the global heat balance. We reproduced the observed temperature changes in the deep ocean using a data assimilation system, and examined virtual observations in the reproduced data field to evaluate the uncertainty of the HC changes estimated from the actual temporally and spatially sparse observations. From the analysis of the virtual observations, it is shown that the global HC increase below 3000 m during recent decades can be detected using the available observation system of periodic revisits to the same sampling sections, although the uncertainty is large."

The heat content of 0.8*10^22 J/decade equates to roughly 0.04 Wm-2 at the TOA, which is significant but does not solve the missing heat problem. They do note in their conclusion that the measurements in the >3000 region are sparse and non-uniform, and ultimately call for more and better research into this area.

For starters the missing hot spot is an indication of a strong water vapour feedback. The fact that it is not there shows the climate system is not behaving the way the climate models say it should behave.

I doubt that the missing heat is store below 700m in the oceans. There are far too many uncertainties in measuring OHC below 700m. Plus you would also have to explain how it arrived from the top of the oceans to such a depth without leaving any signals as it passed through the layers of the oceans.

Lastly, the "missing heat" is a figment of Trenbreth's failed computer models. It is not there because his computer models of the earth`s energy imbalance is wrong.

"Considering that these calculations on which the TF analysis is based involve an explicit matching to the estimate of H one cannot possibly regard FTOA = 0.9 W/m2 as a purely empirical result without assigning error bars so large that the “missing energy” is lost in them. This is the basis of our opinion that missing energy is most likely an artifact due to the acceptance, or imposition, of the modeled value FTOA = 0.9 W/m2."

TF=(Trenberth and Fasullo (2010) Tracking Earth’s Energy, Science 328 p316-317.)

H= Hansen et al. (2005) Earth’s Energy balance: Confirmation and implication, Science 308 1431-1435.)

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/r...

The net inward energy flux at the top of the atmosphere (FTOC) has to almost equal to FOHC, the rate of change of ocean heat content. If there is a difference then there is an energy imbalance and thus missing energy. In order to believe that there is missing energy one has to believe that there is no uncertainties in the FTOC. But there are huge uncertainties with FTOC. The uncertainties in FTOA CERES values are estimated to be 2σ = 4.2 W/m2 [N. Loeb et al., J. Climate 22 (2009) 748].

One of the reason why climate scientists are certain that the FTOC value is correct is because Hansen calculated that value in 2005 and it matched historically the FOHC. But if you look at the OHC data there is a huge spike in OHC at the exact time when the method of calculating OHC was introduced. Alarms bells should always ring off when that happens. Josh Willis has said that there are many uncertainties in the pre Argo OHC data. So yes it does match, but given the huge uncertainties in the pre Argo OHC, one should not have too much confidence in this historical matchup.

First, I never can quite understand why everyone gets bugs in their pants about the "missing heat." The heat is going somewhere. Either out into space or into the oceans. We just have to figure out where and have the tools (and it was the lack of tools which trembath considered to be the tragedy) to verify.

Nailing the energy balance is only a secondary corroboration of the general warming trend. It is nice to have to satisfy some of the naysayers and it helps verify climate models.

That said using the thermal expansion of water is a reasonable way to deduce the temperature rise in the icy depth. Hard to get enough data points otherwise. So yes, this indicates the depths as the sink for the missing heat, but in of itself, I don't think the paper, based on the abstract, is sufficient. It needs to be corroborated.

Perhaps that is where the warmer waters come from during El Nino and therefore there is greater release of carbon dioxide during those periods of time which then forces the air temperature to increase.

The heat isn't missing, we just have not figured out where it has been going. The same goes for CO2 concentrations; we can measure the levels but we haven't figured out conclusively which forces which.

Considering our lack of information in the deep oceans and how the oceans do transport water vertically, having answers as to how much heat is stored down there will certainly help us account for the missing heat. I think these studies are definitely good starts, but like FGR said, it will need further research and corroboration, esp. to silence the deniers. Thanks for the heads-up.

(BTW, I find it hilarious that Richie in his "retort" question above said that he doesn't think the oceans are storing heat, because there's no evidence. Isn't that kind of what we're saying, that we don't have much information?)

how interesting. you should point out the first study has actual sample data, so there are 2 kinds of data backing each other up.

i can picture it, all that warmer (extra couple of degrees in surface waters some places around antarctica in recent years, so sinking water doesnt need to be so cold either) water pouring down into the deeps.

there is a stronger deep current up the west side of the atlantic, where they see the higher readings, that bit seems obvious. i'm trying to remember how long it takes for the antarctic bottom waters to get back up again. quite some sump anyway, we have a few thousand years to learn how to fine tune the atmosphere before that lot hits us back again.

I have no idea. :) And I won't pretend that a little thought experiment or a glance out my window will tell me. It's well outside the realm of my expertise.

This is exactly how the science should go, though; theory gets tested, holes get found, observations are made, attempts are made to correct the theory or fill the gaps based on new data, etc.

The resolution of big "mysteries" like this sometimes leads to radical adjustments of science's view of our world. See also Thomas Kuhn, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scie...

When Newtonian physics broke down with detailed physical measurements of our world, it did not invalidate Newtonian physics as a useful model, but it did lead to a paradigm shift towards Einstein's theory of relativity.

Anyway, thinking big here. OTOH maybe the problem is just that all the thermometers are on tarmacs, right? ;)

Basic thermodynamics says that the heat has to go somewhere. If everything else is ruled out, the heat has to be going into the oceans.

thanks for the lead.

I had a quick look at the paper. Beyond my own expertise, but it certainly looks plausible; it explains with one hypothesis the missing heat, and ocean level rising in excess of expectation.

edit: Does Eric really not know that the "thermal island" argument was exposed as baseless last year, by showing that if you left out the urban stations you still got just as much, in fact a fraction more, reported warming?

I'll assume that sam really thinks that joannenova is a reputable source, though how he manages that ...

There is no missing heat lmao, if its missing then it means it was never there to begin with....

global warmings a scam and they just want you to think that our planets heating up when really the tempurature has been decreaseing over the last decade